MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Structured Exercise as a Potential Treatment Option for Prenatal Depression

2019· article· en· W2954315110 on OpenAlexaff
Taniya S. Nagpal, Marina Vargas‐Terrones, Marı́a Perales, Harry Prapavessis, Rubén Barakat, Michelle F. Mottola

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialPregnancyDepression (economics)Physical therapyEdinburgh Postnatal Depression ScalePrenatal careIntervention (counseling)Obstetrics and gynaecologyObstetricsDepressive symptomsPsychiatryPopulationAnxietyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Up to 20% of pregnant women experience prenatal depression and up to 19% will continue to have depressive symptoms in the postpartum. Previous research supports exercise during pregnancy as an effective way to prevent prenatal depression, however evidence is lacking regarding exercise as a potential treatment for women who enter pregnancy already at risk for depression. Therefore the purpose was to determine if exercise during pregnancy is an effective option to treat depression during pregnancy. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of two randomized controlled trials that followed the same exercise protocol and study methodology in Madrid, Spain. Women <16 weeks pregnant were randomized to an exercise group (EG) or standard care control group (CG). The EG participated in group fitness classes three times per week. The classes included moderate intensity aerobics and resistance training in accordance to the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology guidelines. All participants completed the Centre for Epidemiologic Studies Depression scale (CES-D) at baseline and at the end of the intervention (36-38 weeks gestation). Women who scored ≥16 on the CES-D at baseline (at risk for depression) were included in the current study. A One-Way ANOVA was performed to determine if there was a difference in post CES-D scores between the EG and CG. A Chi-Square Analysis was performed to determine if there was a difference between the two groups for the number of women who had a decrease in their score at the end of the intervention and also scored below 16 post-intervention. RESULTS: Thirty-six women in the EG and 25 women in the CG scored ≥16 on the CES-D at baseline. Post-intervention, the EG had a significantly lower mean CES-D score (14.4±8.6) than the CG (19.4±11.1; p<0.05). Additionally, more women decreased their score in the EG (n=30, 83.3%) than the CG (n=14, 56%; p<0.05) however there was no difference in the number of women who went below the 16 point cut-off between the two groups. CONCLUSION: A structured exercise program offered during pregnancy may reduce depressive symptoms among women who begin pregnancy already at risk for prenatal depression. Therefore exercise may be a viable treatment option for prenatal depression.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum→French-language works237,207→